April 23, 2007

Can't we all just agree???

"Instead of having meaning, statements should be seen as performative of meaning; not as possessing some portable and 'universal' content but, rather, as instrumental in organisation and legitimation of powerrelations" (Barker and Hulme 445).

Jay explains in his blog that it is not the act as much as it is the reaction to the acts that matter. This focus from the interpretative problem of meaning to questions of instrumentality and function allow for the audience and critics to view the text and their meanings as yo-yos. Their meanings and ideas sway from side to side and everyone views them through different lenses.
These statements, discourses, and the level they operate at are not easy to observe but are only approachable through their effects similar to the way grammar work in certain sentences.

Who is to say that 'something' means this?? Where is the power held? And here we are back to the politics...

As Kevin Hinton states in his blog, culture itself is open to interpretation and can be changed to fit anything. This also applies to meanings of texts.

Posted by Denamarie at April 23, 2007 12:08 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.setonhill.edu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/9915